Santos v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: On August 9, 1974, a passenger jeepney driven by Freddie Obillo struck and killed petitioners' son in Quezon City. The driver was convicted in the City Court of Quezon City, and his decision became final and executory. Petitioners sought to enforce the driver's subsidiary civil liability against the owner and operator of the jeepney, private respondent Francisco S. Nigos, pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, after failing to satisfy the driver's civil liability. Private respondent challenged the constitutionality of Article 103, but his motion to dismiss was denied. He then filed an answer denying that Obillo was his authorized driver, disclaiming subsidiary civil liability. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City ruled in favor of the petitioners on October 17, 1978, ordering private respondent to pay P40,000.00 for the death of the deceased, actual damages, loss of earnings, and moral damages, plus interest, attorney's fees, and costs. 2. Procedural History: Private respondent filed a notice of appeal and a Record on Appeal on November 27, 1978. However, on August 8, 1979, the trial court denied approval of the Record on Appeal, stating that the proper remedy was a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Republic Act No. 5440, as the appeal raised only a question of law. On October 3, 1979, the trial court granted the issuance of a writ of execution, and on June 19, 1980, a writ of execution was issued, leading to the levy of private respondent's properties and a scheduled auction sale. Private respondent then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's orders denying the appeal and issuing the writ of execution. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order and, on March 19, 1981, granted the writ of certiorari, nullifying the trial court's decision and order of execution, and remanding the case for further proceedings. 3. The Petition: The Supreme Court granted the petition for review, finding that the Court of Appeals acted beyond its jurisdiction. The Court held that the trial court's judgment had become final and executory by August 1979 due to private respondent's failure to file a timely petition for review on certiorari under Republic Act No. 5440, which had superseded ordinary appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law. The Court emphasized that private respondent waived his right to appeal by not following the mandated procedure and that the special civil action for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals nearly a year later could not substitute for a lost appeal. Furthermore, the Court found that the Court of Appeals exceeded its authority by ruling on the merits of the case and nullifying the trial court's judgment, rather than merely addressing the propriety of the denied appeal and the execution order. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and ordered the case remanded for enforcement of the trial court's writ of execution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in entertaining a special civil action for certiorari to review a judgment that had become final and executory. Whether the proper mode of appeal from the trial court's decision, which involved a question of law, was a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Republic Act No. 5440. Whether the special civil action for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals could serve as a substitute for a lost appeal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for enforcement of the writ of execution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals acted beyond its jurisdiction in entertaining the special civil action for certiorari. The trial court's judgment had become final and executory due to the private respondent's failure to file the proper mode of appeal within the statutory period. A special civil action for certiorari cannot be used to circumvent the rules on appeal or to revive a lost appeal. On the proper mode of appeal: The Court reiterated that under Republic Act No. 5440, appeals from the Court of First Instance to the Supreme Court involving questions of law must be taken through a petition for review on certiorari. The trial court correctly pointed out that the private respondent's remedy was not an ordinary appeal but a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court. The private respondent's failure to file this petition within the prescribed period rendered the judgment final and executory. On the special civil action as a substitute for a lost appeal: The Court emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal. The private respondent's failure to pursue the correct appellate remedy within the statutory period resulted in the finality of the trial court's judgment. The subsequent filing of a special civil action almost a year later could not revive the lapsed right to appeal. The Court further noted that the appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing upon the merits of the case and nullifying the trial court's judgment, which had already become final and executory.
Main Doctrine
A special civil action for certiorari cannot be availed of to take the place of a lost appeal, especially when the judgment has long become final and executory due to the failure to file the proper mode of appeal within the statutory period.